CTNF 18/482,652 CTNF 93532 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 17-33 filed on 10/6/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22 201 081.1 , filed on 10/12/2022 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 10/6/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action. Drawings The drawings filed on 10/6/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable. Specification The specification filed on 10/6/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 17, 25-26, 29, 31, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 17, 25-26, 29, 31, and 33 each include the limitation of, “and/or”, which leads to confusion as to whether the proceeding limitation is required or not. In order to further prosecution, each instance will be more broadly interpreted as “or” until corrections are made . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ trigger element ” in claims 27 and 29. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites: “ wherein the processor is configured in such a way as to evaluate the received operational data, ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, broadly recites evaluating data which can reasonably be done in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claim 17 additionally recites, “ wherein, when a predetermined evaluation criterion is reached from the evaluation of the received operational data, the processor provides an isolated control instruction. ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, recites a limitation in which a processor provides the control instruction, however, there is not positive recitation of the control instruction being utilized to perform a function and thus, just simply applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 17 recites, “ wherein the memory is configured in such a way as to store the received operational data, and wherein the processor is configured in such a way as to evaluate the received operational data, ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 17 also recites, “ Sanitary system, comprising at least one sanitary article respectively having a sanitary article controller and an actuator, wherein the sanitary article controller is configured to drive the actuator according to its intended use and wherein the sanitary article controller has a sanitary article communication interface, ”, “ at least one gateway having a gateway communication interface and a memory which is connected to the gateway communication interface, as well as a processor, ”, and “ wherein the at least one gateway is connected via the gateway communication interface to the sanitary article communication interface via a data connection, which data connection is configured in such a way that operational data of the sanitary article controller and/or of the actuator are transmittable to the gateway via the data connection, ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provide several limitations describing various physical aspects of the system which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “sanitary article controller”, “gateway communication interface”, “memory”, and “processor”, as generally recited merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering operational data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”). Review of the dependent claims 25-26 and 32, provided more limitations in which data is gathered/stored, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Review of dependent claims 21-24, 27-31, and 33, each include limitations describing various physical aspects of the system or connections between system components or various aspects describing the control acts being performed, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). ***Examiner’s Note: claims 18-20 each describe control limitations in which a controller drives an actuation device according to the received control instruction, which does show significantly more than the judicial exception as the controller is utilizing the control instruction to effect the system. The office recommends amending the claims to incorporate these limitations in order to overcome the current rejection.*** Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Heydari et al. (US PGPUB 20210157340) . Regarding Claim 17 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system, comprising at least one sanitary article respectively having a sanitary article controller and an actuator, wherein the sanitary article controller is configured to drive the actuator according to its intended use and wherein the sanitary article controller has a sanitary article communication interface, (Heydari; at least Figs. 2 and 3A; paragraphs [0056]-[0057]; disclose a network connected sanitary system including a plurality of fixtures including sinks, toilets, and urinals and wherein each of the fixtures includes its own flush valve assembly and wherein each fixture is connected to a computing device configured to monitor/control the plurality of fixtures) at least one gateway having a gateway communication interface and a memory which is connected to the gateway communication interface, as well as a processor, (Heydari; at least Figs. 1B-1E; paragraphs [0130]; disclose a gateway communication interface as well as a processor and memory) wherein the at least one gateway is connected via the gateway communication interface to the sanitary article communication interface via a data connection, which data connection is configured in such a way that operational data of the sanitary article controller and/or of the actuator are transmittable to the gateway via the data connection, (Heydari; at least Figs. 1B-2; paragraph [0057]; disclose wherein the system includes at least one gateway connected to the plurality of fixtures and wherein the gateway can send/receive information regarding the plurality of fixtures via a data connection) wherein the memory is configured in such a way as to store the received operational data, and wherein the processor is configured in such a way as to evaluate the received operational data, (Heydari; at least Fig. 2; paragraphs [0056]-[0061]; disclose wherein the system tracks and stores a plurality of operational data (i.e. number of flushes, usage frequency, time since last use, etc.) and can perform evaluations such as detecting a long usage time by a user as well as detect solids in the toilet bowl and make a determination to perform a high volume flush) and wherein, when a predetermined evaluation criterion is reached from the evaluation of the received operational data, the processor provides an isolated control instruction. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063]; disclose wherein the plurality of flush valves for each fixture are connected to sanitary controller, and based on received sensor data, can provide isolated flush control signals to operate the flush valves outside of normal usage). Regarding Claim 18 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the isolated control instruction is transmittable from the gateway to the sanitary article controller via the data connection, the sanitary article controller driving the actuator with the isolated control instruction. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0053]-[0055]). Regarding Claim 19 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the isolated control instruction drives the actuator independently of the driving according to the intended use, the actuator being a valve and the isolated control instruction being a hygienic flush instruction, with which the valve is opened for a predetermined period of time and is closed again after the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0015], [0074], and [0124]-[0125]). Regarding Claim 20 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the isolated control instruction is transmittable from the gateway to the sanitary article controller via the data connection, the sanitary article controller driving the actuator with the isolated control instruction, and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the actuator independently of the driving according to the intended use, the actuator being a valve and the isolated control instruction being a hygienic flush instruction, with which the valve is opened for a predetermined period of time and is closed again after the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0015], [0053]-[0055], [0074], and [0124]-[0125]). Regarding Claim 21 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary article is a hygienic flush apparatus and the actuator is a valve, the driving according to the intended use being deactivated when the data connection has been provided, and the isolated control instruction being a hygienic flush instruction, with which the valve is opened for a predetermined period of time and is closed again after the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0015], [0074], and [0124]-[0125]). Regarding Claim 22 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the driving according to the intended use is assigned to the gateway, and wherein the isolated control instruction is a control instruction according to the intended use, such that the actuator is driven centrally by the gateway. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0050]-[0055]). Regarding Claim 23 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the driving according to the intended use and the isolated control instruction are carried out separately from one another, the isolated control instruction preferably being reset when an instruction according to the driving according to the intended use is carried out and being carried out after the conclusion of the instruction according to the driving according to the intended use. (Heydari; at least Fig. 7B). Regarding Claim 24 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the isolated control instruction is sent to the sanitary article controller without a time delay, the sanitary article controller carrying out the control instruction immediately after reception without a time delay. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0063] and [0130]). Regarding Claim 25 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary article controller furthermore has a memory which is configured to store predefined control parameters for the driving of the actuator according to the intended use and/or which is configured to store the operational data. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). Regarding Claim 26 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary article controller furthermore has a memory which is configured to store predefined control parameters for the driving of the actuator according to the intended use and/or which is configured to store the operational data, and wherein the control parameters remain unmodified when the isolated control instruction is received, and wherein the isolated control instruction is not storable in the memory of the sanitary article controller. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0042] and [0049]-[0050]). Regarding Claim 27 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary article has a trigger element which is operatively connected to the sanitary article controller and is configured to drive the actuator according to the intended use or to trigger a function on the sanitary article. (Heydari; at least paragraph [0062]). Regarding Claim 28 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary system furthermore has a computer, in particular a mobile computer, the computer having a computer communication interface and the gateway having a further communication interface, a data connection being providable between the computer communication interface and the further communication interface. (Heydari; at least Figs. 6A-7F). Regarding Claim 29 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary system furthermore has a computer, in particular a mobile computer, the computer having a computer communication interface and the gateway having a further communication interface, a data connection being providable between the computer communication interface and the further communication interface, and wherein the predefined control parameters are modifiable only by an instruction which is issued by the computer, (Heydari; at least Figs. 6A-7F) wherein the sanitary article controller furthermore has a memory which is configured to store predefined control parameters for the driving of the actuator according to the intended use and/or which is configured to store the operational data; or wherein the sanitary article controller furthermore has a memory which is configured to store predefined control parameters for the driving of the actuator according to the intended use and/or which is configured to store the operational data, and wherein the control parameters remain unmodified when the isolated control instruction is received, and wherein the isolated control instruction is not storable in the memory of the sanitary article controller; or wherein the sanitary article has a trigger element which is operatively connected to the sanitary article controller and is configured to drive the actuator according to the intended use or to trigger a function on the sanitary article. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0042], [0049]-[0050], and [0062]). Regarding Claim 30 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 29, wherein the control parameters are modifiable only by manual input of a user instruction on the computer. (Heydari; at least Fig. 7B; paragraph [0074]). Regarding Claim 31 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the actuator is a water valve, particularly wherein the actuator is a flush valve and/or a hygienic flush valve and/or check valve and/or a bypass valve, and wherein the isolated control instruction has a valve actuation instruction, in particular an opening instruction and a closing instruction and a valve opening duration. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0015], [0061]-[0062], and [0124]-[0125]). Regarding Claim 32 ; Heydari teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the sanitary system furthermore comprises at least one sensor which is connected with a further gateway communication interface via a data connection to the gateway, sensor data of the at least one sensor being transmitted to the gateway via the data connection, and the sensor data being included in the evaluation. (Heydari; at least paragraphs [0060]-[0061]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heydari et al. (US PGPUB 20210157340) in view of Spiro et al. (US PGPUB 20200217057) . Regarding Claim 33 ; Heydari appears to be silent on; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the gateway has at least one further communication interface and wherein the sanitary system furthermore has at least one third system having a third-system communication interface , a data connection being providable between the further communication interface and the third-system communication interface, via which data connection the isolated control instruction is provided to the third system by the gateway, wherein the at least one third system is a light system having at least one lamp and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the light system, or the at least one lamp; and/or wherein the at least one third system is a fan system having at least one fan and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the fan system, or the at least one fan; and/or wherein the at least one third system is a fragrance dispenser system having at least one fragrance dispenser and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the fragrance dispenser system, or the at least one fragrance dispenser; and/or wherein the at least one third system is an alarm system and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the alarm system. However, Spiro teaches; Sanitary system according to Claim 17, wherein the gateway has at least one further communication interface and wherein the sanitary system furthermore has at least one third system having a third-system communication interface , a data connection being providable between the further communication interface and the third-system communication interface, via which data connection the isolated control instruction is provided to the third system by the gateway, wherein the at least one third system is a light system having at least one lamp and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the light system, or the at least one lamp; and/or wherein the at least one third system is a fan system having at least one fan and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the fan system, or the at least one fan; and/or wherein the at least one third system is a fragrance dispenser system having at least one fragrance dispenser and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the fragrance dispenser system, or the at least one fragrance dispenser; and/or wherein the at least one third system is an alarm system and wherein the isolated control instruction drives the alarm system. (Spiro; at least Abstract; paragraph [0046]; disclose a self-cleaning bathroom system and method which provides user controls for various bathroom appliances via an app and wherein one of the appliances is a fragrance dispenser that can be controlled by the user). Heydari and Spiro are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of bathroom cleaning and control systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of including additional devices that can be controlled such as a fragrance dispenser as taught by Spiro with the known system of a bathroom cleaning and control system as taught by Heydari in order to provide a way reduce the burden of manually cleaning and provide a system for on demand cleaning as taught by Spiro (paragraph [0005]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US PGPUB 20180163983): disclose a bathroom management system and method that provides a plurality of devices such as fans, lamps, and heaters that can be manually controlled by a user using a user interface. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 2 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 3 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 4 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 5 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 6 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 7 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 8 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 9 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 10 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 11 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 12 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 13 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/482,652 Page 14 Art Unit: 2117